God's Omniscience: Ends Justify Means?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?

If so, this would explain God's special moral privilege. God, and only God, can do whatever he wants in service of his ends, not only because his goals are ultimately good, but because he alone can be absolutely certain he will achieve them. This would explain why mortals do not have the same moral privilege, and why we're not supposed to murder to achieve our ends. It's not because our ends are necessarily evil, but because, even if we have good goals, we can't be absolutely certain this act will actually achieve that goal. And isn't it inherent in the idea that "ends justify the means" that those ends must actually be achieved?

But here's a real doozy of a sub-question: Is it even logically possible for a being to know for certain if it is really omniscient? It knows everything it knows, but isn't the idea that this is all... fundamentally an assumption? Isn't it logically necessary that for any being, "I am omniscient," simply assumes nothing exists outside the breadth of its knowledge, when it always might? I exist in three spatial dimensions: Length, width, and breadth. I can't say there aren't four, or five, or twenty million dimensions of space, and critters flying around me in the "new upward" where I can't possibly crane my neck and look, but they can still reach down, and affect me. God exists in, what, 26 spatial dimensions? Can he say there aren't 27? It's possible to never have made a mistake. It's possible to never have got one thing wrong in your life. But is it possible to say this trend will necessarily, absolutely continue, with 100% certainty?

...And if it can't make that determination, that it is omniscient, with 100% certainty, doesn't that then cast its actions for the sake of its grand Plan, in the same light as any of our actions, when we do something horrid to try and achieve a better end?

[Purple Knight]

No, 100% certain omniscience actually is logically impossible, so God is going to have to find a different justification for his special moral privilege to do whatever he wants.

Omniscience is possible, but not 100% certain omniscience. I believe this to be logically impossible and I think can demonstrate.



This is the Infosphere obtaining all facts in the universe. Assume for the purposes of the discussion that there are exactly six facts in the universe. The Infosphere may be omniscient; it may easily know them all. But to be certain it is omniscient, it would have to know the fact, "The Infosphere knows all facts," which would create a seventh fact. Now it must know all seven facts to be omniscient. However, its own certain knowledge of its certain knowledge... would create an eighth fact: "The Infosphere knows that it knows all facts."

This is not some logical bamboozle. The fact that Kevin knows Mandy is cheating on him... is kind of important. Whether each being in a universe has a particular knowledge or not, clearly qualifies as a piece of information that is not simply a spandrel of the way we do logic (like the paradox of "this statement is a lie," probably is) but an actual relevant piece of information that makes a difference. With even three beings you could not have a universe of six facts (but I admitted that number was deliberately deflated) and it's also probably the case that two different beings can't both be omniscient.

Imagine that at then end of the que, there is always just one... more... brain... carrying that one... last... fact. But as it is scanned in, it creates an additional fact: The knowledge of the previous fact, which must be scanned in.

You know how Infosphere can put a halt to this endless que? Instead of "Infosphere knows that it knows all facts," the last brain must be carrying a plaque that says, "Whether 'Infosphere knows that it knows all facts,' cannot be determined." And that last fact can be true. It must be.

For basic omniscience, you can have it and excuse yourself from knowing about it, if the truth value of your omniscience is indeterminate, which I think I've just shown it must be. The idea that a being knows everything can never be absolutely known for certain. It's not just the idea that there might be another dimension or something outside its understanding... it is actually logically impossible to be absolutely certain you're omniscient.

In other words, you can think you know everything.

...You can be right.

...But you can never be certain.

[1213]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?...

Maybe all morality is an ends-justify-means morality. But, I don't think God is arbitrary or biased. He will judge everyone with same principles.

[boatsnguitars]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?...

Maybe all morality is an ends-justify-means morality. But, I don't think God is arbitrary or biased. He will judge everyone with same principles.

That's not the question. We can all speculate on things and believe all kinds of things about God.

The question is "Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality."

Your thoughts about God are either incredibly arrogant to speak for him, wrong, or many other options. Succinctly, what difference does your belief about God make?

"It means that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of getting it is acceptable. The idea is ancient, but it was not meant to justify unnecessary cruelty. It was part of a political philosophy called consequentialism. The basic idea is that a policy can be judged by its outcome."

For example, when Yahweh flooded the Earth, he determined that the means (flood) were justified to achieve the end: to rid the world of sinful people.
Paul suggested that lying about being part of a certain group in order to convince people they should follow Jesus was justified.
Missionaries will often use pretense to slowly convince people of Jesus. Some won't use pretense at all, but feel the destruction of a culture (say, Native American) is justified if people find Jesus.


I think it really comes down to the problem with Religion and Religionists - especially fanatics/extremists. Luke Warm Christians don't tend to use "ends-justify-the-means" methods.
I'd add that Fanatics of Nationalism, etc. also fall into the "Religionist" category. But, not exclusively, as anyone can employ it for any end.

The question is whether the Bible specifically outlines a ethic that places the end (presumably the optimum number of souls in Heaven, or God's happiness) as so vastly important that murder, genocide, the existence of Hell, missionaries forcing converts, or even creating a religion in the first place - is worth it?

Let's take out the extreme examples. And, let's focus on the End: The End - as depicted in the Bible - is that God will send Jesus, horses and angels to Earth and separate the 'wheat from the chafe' in order to establish an eternal Kingdom of God in which God is content. So, it seems that the End is God's happiness. Whatever makes God happy is the End.

Apparently, the means to this end is tens of thousands of years of bloodshed, pain and misery. It's religious wars, disease, floods, famine, etc. for an undetermined amount of time (soon, allegedly). People being born and killed with no hope of redemption or sharing with God's happiness. He doesn't want many of us to join him. Clearly. (I know it's fashionable to say he wants all of us to join him, but this is demonstrably untrue even internally to the Bible).

All of this pain and misery are the means to his happiness. They may even contribute to his happiness - otherwise he'd stop it. (For example, he loves the smell of burning flesh. He demanded a human sacrifice in the form of Jesus. He requires loyalty to the point of martyrdom. Only then will he be happy to welcome you into Heaven - which he has set up as his exclusive club.)

If the End was to save people, there are far better means. If the End was to get people to enjoy Heaven, there are better means. If the End was our happiness, there are better means.

Of course, the Apologtic is, "How do you know there are better means to make God happy?"

Well, true. I don't think there are better ways to make Yahweh happy - that's why Yahweh is such a horribly flawed character; a malicious spirit.

[TRANSPONDER]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?...

Maybe all morality is an ends-justify-means morality. But, I don't think God is arbitrary or biased. He will judge everyone with same principles.

Supposing that was true, the principles are His own opinion. Would it really not occur to Him that he doesn't know whether His judgement is really valid? He may think so but how does he know he knows? If he was wrong, he wouldn't know.

Of course, He may not care. The impression I get is, He can do what He likes, good or bad. He may issue a book of propaganda saying He's good, just and unchanging, when clearly He isn't. He repents over the Flood, gets talked out of destroying a city, rethinks His whole plan for the New Covenant, though the apologists excuse it by saying 'repent' means something else, changing the message doesn't mean He changes, and never mind Abraham talking God out of act of destruction with a trick a child could see coming.

I'm just glad I don't have to believe or try to excuse any of it.

[1213]

Supposing that was true, the principles are His own opinion. Would it really not occur to Him that he doesn't know whether His judgement is really valid? He may think so but how does he know he knows? If he was wrong, he wouldn't know.

I think it depends on the reasoning. And I think God is correct in his opinion, His judgment is good and righteous. But, obviously this could be debated, why would His judgment not be valid. I don't think you can give any reasonable argument for that the judgment is not valid.

Of course, He may not care. The impression I get is, He can do what He likes, good or bad. He may issue a book of propaganda saying He's good, just and unchanging, when clearly He isn't.

I think He is the only good one.

[1213]

The question is "Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality."

I would like to see example of morality, that can't be called "an ends-justify-means morality.

For example, when Yahweh flooded the Earth, he determined that the means (flood) were justified to achieve the end: to rid the world of sinful people.

Bible doesn't tell that it was justified by the end result. Bible simply tells God doesn't allow evil to continue forever. Can you give some good reason why evil should be allowed to continue eternally?

Paul suggested that lying about being part of a certain group in order to convince people they should follow Jesus was justified.

I think you have misunderstood him.

And, let's focus on the End: The End - as depicted in the Bible - is that God will send Jesus, horses and angels to Earth and separate the 'wheat from the chafe' in order to establish an eternal Kingdom of God in which God is content. So, it seems that the End is God's happiness. Whatever makes God happy is the End.

Apparently, the means to this end is tens of thousands of years of bloodshed, pain and misery. It's religious wars, disease, floods, famine, etc. for an undetermined amount of time (soon, allegedly). People being born and killed with no hope of redemption or sharing with God's happiness. He doesn't want many of us to join him. Clearly. (I know it's fashionable to say he wants all of us to join him, but this is demonstrably untrue even internally to the Bible).

I think it is wrong to say God doesn't want people to join him. If that would be true, we would not have the Bible, we probably would not even exist at all.

All of this pain and misery are the means to his happiness. They may even contribute to his happiness - otherwise he'd stop it.

And when He stops evil, like in the case of the great flood, you complain...

If the End was to save people, there are far better means. If the End was to get people to enjoy Heaven, there are better means. If the End was our happiness, there are better means.

What would be better way?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?...

Maybe all morality is an ends-justify-means morality. But, I don't think God is arbitrary or biased. He will judge everyone with same principles.

I actually think this is a good answer, because I don't know a lot of people who wouldn't kill baby Hitler in his crib, if they could. To say no, you'd have to believe murder is wrong, just wrong, no matter what, and the best non-theistic answer I can think of is that we know society would disintegrate if people killed whoever they thought was evil, so we're better off acting as if murder is wrong, just wrong... but even this is kind of an ends-justify-means morality with extra steps.

I think it really comes down to the problem with Religion and Religionists - especially fanatics/extremists. Luke Warm Christians don't tend to use "ends-justify-the-means" methods.
I'd add that Fanatics of Nationalism, etc. also fall into the "Religionist" category. But, not exclusively, as anyone can employ it for any end.

I actually think what 1213 suggested, that all morality might come down to ends-justify-means, is a good one, and I'd like to ask you if you believe that the ends justify the means. There was Reddit user who claimed to have killed a bunch of Trump voters out of the belief that Trump is evil. If Trump really is evil, can you say this guy's actions are wrong? He seems to take a lot of pride in it, but if he's doing the right thing, why wouldn't he? I can't fault him. Just like I can't fault the people who blow up Planned Parenthood because they think they're fighting murder.

poisoningTrumpsupporters.png

And it really goes to the best knowledge thing because let's say this guy killed 121 Trump supporters, and assume Trump is really totally evil, and it actually made the difference. Let's also assume that he only needed to kill 37. And also... one of the guys he killed... was a Liberal and he only thought the guy was going to vote for evil. But he still acted on his best judgment. And he had no way to know how many he needed to kill and whether it would make a difference or not.

The more I think about it, the more I think that everyone believes that the ends justify the means. I have yet to see good support for the idea that the ends don't justify the means. I'm not sure there is any.

The only counterpoint I see is that we're all such bloody retards on the cosmic scale that we have no idea what the ultimate result of any action will be, and it might have been necessary to have evil now so this next big reaction happens and the world actually fixes itself, so the best we can do is not cause any individual immediate harm. And that's an argument from ignorance imo. Like, literally.

Okay, I can cook up something slightly better. Slightly. This is my brain running at 100% and overheating, trying to think of anything, absolutely any straw that deontological thinking could possibly grasp at. I come up with the idea that the further from the point of action an outcome is, the less certain it is, the more we might be able to say that this guy is probably just killing people for nothing. Do 11 people make that difference? What if he's wrong that Trump is evil in the first place? What if it really is okay to be white? The latter aren't too likely but we still have to contend with the amount of people we can kill not making a difference and we're just adding harm for no benefit.

If ends really do justify means, and God really knows more than we do and is honest and fair (note: we have no way to know that) then we are simply doing ends-justify-means with extra steps by following his every whim. However, if God, like us, has limits to his knowledge, then we're just subbing our little screw-ups for his big ones.

The most bothersome part, to me, is that I think I've proven, strictly logically, that being certain of your own omniscience is impossible. That means God is lying, or at least stating his very very educated guess as truth, if he claims to be omniscient.

[boatsnguitars]

The question is "Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality."

I would like to see example of morality, that can't be called "an ends-justify-means morality.

Utilitarianism.
Rigging an election to save democracy.
Cheating on a test to get a good grade in a course you will need to ultimately pass later.
A teacher requiring students to sleep with them to get a good grade.
Beating people until morale improves.

https://www.ethicsandculture.com/blog/2 ... -the-means
https://eu.courierpress.com/story/life/ ... o%20others.

"SINGER: I do think that the end justifies the means. I think that that's the point, in a way, that, of course, bad ends don't justify means. And if the means involve harming people and there are other means that you could have taken, then you should take those other means. But if the only way to prevent something very bad happening is to do something which would itself be bad but not as bad as the very bad thing that you're trying to prevent happening, then you're justified in doing the lesser evil rather than allowing the greater evil to occur. So if killing one innocent person is the only way to save a larger number of innocent people from being killed, then I think that is the right thing to do."

(In this example, he is saying that there is no justifying killing 5 or 10 people to save 100, when killing 1 person achieves the End.)

I'm not surprised a Christian can't think of examples where the Means are not justified, since the Bible is full of genocide - even killing the babies and cattle - just to stop a few bad actors.

I can't think of thousands of examples. For example, robbing a bank for money instead of working for it. Stealing child's candy because you want some.
Punching a co-worker in the face because you don't like their presentation. Shooting a person to stop them from merging their car in front of you.
Poisoning the public water supply to keep the rat population down.

Like I said, I'm not surprised Christians can't consider these things.

For example, when Yahweh flooded the Earth, he determined that the means (flood) were justified to achieve the end: to rid the world of sinful people.

Bible doesn't tell that it was justified by the end result. Bible simply tells God doesn't allow evil to continue forever. Can you give some good reason why evil should be allowed to continue eternally?

Why does Evil still exist? Why does God allegedly allow evil to exist? How would you solve the Problem of Evil?
Take that argument and insert it as my answer: because there is some Good (it makes God happy).

What was achieved by the Flood? What End?

Paul suggested that lying about being part of a certain group in order to convince people they should follow Jesus was justified.

I think you have misunderstood him.

I dare say you are the one showing that you don't understand morality.

And, let's focus on the End: The End - as depicted in the Bible - is that God will send Jesus, horses and angels to Earth and separate the 'wheat from the chafe' in order to establish an eternal Kingdom of God in which God is content. So, it seems that the End is God's happiness. Whatever makes God happy is the End.

Apparently, the means to this end is tens of thousands of years of bloodshed, pain and misery. It's religious wars, disease, floods, famine, etc. for an undetermined amount of time (soon, allegedly). People being born and killed with no hope of redemption or sharing with God's happiness. He doesn't want many of us to join him. Clearly. (I know it's fashionable to say he wants all of us to join him, but this is demonstrably untrue even internally to the Bible).

I think it is wrong to say God doesn't want people to join him. If that would be true, we would not have the Bible, we probably would not even exist at all.

God can't get what he wants? He's the smartest, most loving and powerful thing in existence and he can't figure out how to convince people to love him?

All of this pain and misery are the means to his happiness. They may even contribute to his happiness - otherwise he'd stop it.

And when He stops evil, like in the case of the great flood, you complain...

When has he stopped evil? Seems it's still here. Just millions dead because he thought it would work - then he thought the sacrifice of one person would work.

Did he try softening hearts, instead of hardening them? Has he really exhausted all options? For example, invite each of us up to Heaven to see what it's like and let us decide? Why is his method the same as every other religion's method: you are born into a religion and have to promise fidelity to the story your parents sell you?

If the End was to save people, there are far better means. If the End was to get people to enjoy Heaven, there are better means. If the End was our happiness, there are better means.

What would be better way?

I mentioned one. I could expand. Like, simply having Jesus come to Earth for generations, never age, do legitimate miracles, etc. He could be present - not a character in a book.

Many others, too. Send angels. Use ESP. I'm sure God could be even more creative.


edit: Here's another example. Attacking civilians, killing babies, and kidnapping innocent people because you want to express your anger towards Israel - or - as a Christian, you can't understand that the means justify the end??

[theophile]

Question for Debate: Is Biblical morality actually an ends-justify-means morality, with the small caveat that you have to be absolutely certain of what the ends will be?
If so, this would explain God's special moral privilege. God, and only God, can do whatever he wants in service of his ends, not only because his goals are ultimately good, but because he alone can be absolutely certain he will achieve them. This would explain why mortals do not have the same moral privilege, and why we're not supposed to murder to achieve our ends. It's not because our ends are necessarily evil, but because, even if we have good goals, we can't be absolutely certain this act will actually achieve that goal. And isn't it inherent in the idea that "ends justify the means" that those ends must actually be achieved?

I think it is an 'ends-justify-the-means' morality, but it is the goal itself, not its certainty of being achieved through certain actions, that provides the justification of the action.

Even extreme actions in the bible such as flooding the earth are justified by the goal they seek, not by the certitude of the action to achieve it. It's more an 'extreme times call for extreme measures' kind of justification, where it is more desperation and last hope, rather than knowledge of outcome, that justifies taking the risk. This is so even for God, I think, who acts without the absolute certainty that you speak of.

Hence it should hold for human action as well. i.e., we too should kill if that is what is called for to achieve the goal. There is a time and place for every thing, right?